456 U.S. 798 (1982)
In the evening of November 27, 1978, an informant who had previously proved to be reliable telephoned Detective Marcum of the District of Columbia Police Department and told him that an individual known as "Bandit" was selling narcotics kept in the trunk of a car parked at 439 Ridge Street.1 The informant stated that he had just observed "Bandit" complete a sale and that "Bandit" had told him that additional narcotics were in the trunk.2 The informant gave Marcum a detailed description of "Bandit" and stated that the car was a "purplish maroon" Chevrolet Malibu with District of Columbia license plates.3
Accompanied by Detective Cassidy and Sergeant Gonzales, Marcum immediately drove to the area and found a maroon Malibu parked in front of 439 Ridge Street.4 A license check disclosed that the car was registered to Albert Ross; a computer check on Ross revealed that he fit the informant's description and used the alias "Bandit."5 The officers returned five minutes later and observed the maroon Malibu turning off Ridge Street onto Fourth Street.6 They pulled alongside the Malibu, noticed that the driver matched the informant's description, and stopped the car.7
Marcum and Cassidy told the driver — later identified as Albert Ross, the respondent in this action — to get out of the vehicle.8 While they searched Ross, Sergeant Gonzales discovered a bullet on the car's front seat.9 He searched the interior of the car and found a pistol in the glove compartment.10 Ross then was arrested and handcuffed.11 Detective Cassidy took Ross' keys and opened the trunk, where he found a closed brown paper bag.12 He opened the bag and discovered several glassine bags containing a white powder.13 Cassidy replaced the bag, closed the trunk, and drove the car to headquarters.14
At the police station Cassidy thoroughly searched the car.15 In addition to the "lunch-type" brown paper bag, Cassidy found in the trunk a zippered red leather pouch.16 He unzipped the pouch and discovered $3,200 in cash.17 The police laboratory later determined that the powder in the paper bag was heroin.18 No warrant was obtained.19 Ross was charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).20 Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the heroin found in the paper bag and the currency found in the leather pouch.21 After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the motion to suppress.22 The heroin and currency were introduced in evidence at trial and Ross was convicted.23 A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in part.24 The entire Court of Appeals then voted to rehear the case en banc and held that the police should not have opened either container without first obtaining a warrant.25 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.26
Whether police officers with probable cause to search an automobile may conduct a warrantless search of closed containers found within the vehicle?27
The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.28 If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle that may conceal the object of the search.29
Yes. The police had probable cause to believe that respondent's automobile contained narcotics based on the informant's tip.30 They therefore were entitled to search the automobile without a warrant, and that probable cause justified the search of the paper bag and the leather pouch found in the trunk.31
The warrantless search of the paper bag and leather pouch did not violate the Fourth Amendment.32
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Marshall dissented from the Court's decision expanding the automobile exception.33 He argued that once the automobile was seized and taken to the station there was no longer any risk that the vehicle would be moved.34 The police therefore had ample time to obtain a warrant before searching the containers found in the trunk.35
The Court's reliance on Carroll v. United States was misplaced because the search in Carroll occurred on the open road where the vehicle could have been driven away.36 Here the vehicle was immobilized after seizure, eliminating any exigency that could justify dispensing with the warrant requirement for closed containers.37
Justice White joined Justice Marshall's dissent but wrote separately to emphasize that the Court's opinion effectively overrules important precedents without adequate justification.38 The rule announced today will allow police to search closed containers in automobiles without warrants even when there is no practical impediment to obtaining one.39 This approach is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and the limitations recognized in prior cases such as Robbins v. California.40
White stressed that the automobile exception should remain confined to situations presenting a genuine risk that evidence will be lost due to vehicle mobility.41
Whether the automobile exception to the warrant requirement extends to every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search?42
Yes. The police officers had probable cause based on the reliable informant's detailed tip that narcotics were being sold from the trunk of Ross's maroon Malibu.45 After lawfully stopping the vehicle, discovering a bullet on the seat and a pistol in the glove compartment, arresting Ross, and searching the trunk, the officers opened the closed paper bag and leather pouch.46 Because the probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and any area or container that might conceal narcotics, the warrantless searches of those containers were reasonable under the automobile exception.
The automobile exception permits the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.47
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun concurred in the Court's opinion and judgment to provide an authoritative ruling on automobile searches.48 He noted his continuing dissatisfaction with the Court's vacillation in this troubled area of Fourth Amendment law across prior cases such as Chadwick, Sanders, and Robbins.49 Clear legal rules governing automobile searches are essential not only for the Court as an institution but also for law enforcement officials and defendants who must apply them in recurring situations.50
By joining the majority, Blackmun ensured that police and courts would have specific guidance for these frequently occurring encounters on public streets.
Justice Powell concurred in the Court's opinion.51 He had previously expressed in Robbins v. California that the judgment there was justified though not compelled by Sanders, and he had long viewed reasonable expectation of privacy as relevant in search cases.52 The decision affords needed guidance to police and courts in recurring automobile search situations.53
It is consistent with Fourth Amendment doctrine in automobile cases and with the similar step taken last Term in New York v. Belton.54